We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Ladies: if you fight off a would-be rapist…

…for goodness sake do NOT then go to the police and tell them how you did it!

So the only reason you did not get raped was that you used pepper spray on this violent thug? Don’t you know pepper spray is illegal?

It is far better in the eyes of the state for you to be raped than have effective means to defend yourself. Seriously, do you think the Boys-in-Blue are there to protect you? If you do think that, then let me disabuse you of that notion: they are there to maintain the power and privileges of the state and any time their actions coincide with your interests (such as catching a violent criminal), that is serendipity rather than design.

38 comments to Ladies: if you fight off a would-be rapist…

  • Paul Marks

    Yes Perry – it is not just firearms.

    It is any means of effective self defence – or the defence of other people.

    The mindset of the establishment (and not just in Britain) is that the ordinary people are slaves – or even cattle.

    We have no real rights.

    Just “positive rights” – nice goods and services to be provided by the government.

  • Paul Marks

    And many (most?) ordinary people are so brainwashed that they agree with all this.

    “That person had a knife – throw them in prison!”.

    “That person had a can of pepper spray – to jail with them also!”.

    “The State is God! The State is God! The State is God!”.

    This is the “modern” view – actually a return to ancient evils.

    Frederick the Great (and the rest of them) must be smiling in Hell.

  • Rob

    There is no need to carry weapons or pepper spray. The police are there to protect you, and when they aren’t “their thoughts and prayers are with you and your family at this difficult time”.

  • Paul Marks

    Denmark – no surprise.

    Ask British and American “liberals” – they will say it is wonderfully governed.

    Not a “nasty” place like, for example, Wyoming.

  • TimR

    Something rotten going on over there.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    It is getting to the stage where the authorities will make it illegal to walk down the street in a confident manner.

    Remember, the rot has started long, long before the latest fears of Muslim immigrants bashing up and sexually molesting Western girls on a night on the town. There has been relentless attack on the very idea of self-defence, in much of Europe, and indeed in parts of the US, for years. In a free and sane country, teachers of self defence would be able to make a lucrative business out of teaching young women on armed and unarmed combat so as to resist attackers. Surely if feminists have an issue to really make a difference over, it should be this.

    (drums fingers on desk….)

  • Maybe the lady in question could bring a court case against the local chief of police, for dereliction of duty in allowing active rapists etc to be there.

    This because, obviously, the disarming of the decent citizenry from their self-defence (and mutual defence) can only be justified if the police take on that role with an adequate level of effectiveness.

    Best regards

  • Stuck-record

    Maybe we could have a system whereby those who are so keen to fill European countries with violent psychopathic religious lunatics, on the grounds of ‘being nice’ and cultural awareness, could put their money where their mouth is and vouch for them.

    The system would work like this: Every immigrant into a country must be sponsored by an individual. That individual is now financially, and legally, responsible for the actions of the immigrant. You could have a sliding scale; £1000 per benefit infraction, £20,000 per assault, £50,000 per rape, £500,000 per murder.

    It would be interesting to see how many of our betters are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    The situation arises because the object of good government in Europe is ‘order’. In America, it is (or was) liberty. You are allowed as much freedom as is compatible with order (none), while we allow our government only as many laws as are necessary to ensure that one person’s freedom doesn’t trample another’s.

    At least, that’s the theory. In fact, your governments and our government seem united in the belief that a helpless public is needed so that the blessings of benevolent government can flow unchecked; or possibly, so that the looting of the public can.

  • Fraser Orr

    Yes, not just for the girls ladies anymore.


    BTW, although I live in the USA I occasionally watch PMQ on the web. I hear a growing discussion of concern over knifes, and calls for knife control legislation. It makes me laugh because here in the US when people talk about gun control one of the arguments ad absurdum is “what, next you will be talking about knife control.” Which only goes to show that the problem with argument ad absurdum is that there are way too many people who will quite happily swallow the most utterly absurd propositions in defense of their viewpoint.

  • FYI, in the USA, all states allow pepper spray. 33 states have no restrictions at all on the stuff.

  • charliel

    So, pepper spray is illegal. Is spray-on oven cleaner?

    Or is it the mere act of self-defense that’s so out of order?

  • Tedd

    The situation arises because the object of good government in Europe is ‘order’. In America, it is (or was) liberty. You are allowed as much freedom as is compatible with order (none), while we allow our government only as many laws as are necessary to ensure that one person’s freedom doesn’t trample another’s.

    If you subscribe to Randy Barnett’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause of the U.S. constitution the distinction disappears. Under that interpretation, Congress only has the authority to pass laws that are necessary to the protection of liberty (one person’s freedom not trampling another’s) and proper in the sense of being minimally intrusive to freedom. However, neither principle has survived contact with popular sovereignty.

  • I sneeze in threes


    The Japanese can always be relied upon to come up with interesting solutions to crime.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly (and correctly) affirmed that the police are not responsible for your safety — i.e. you can’t sue the police for failing to protect you or your property against criminal behaviour.

    Which is fine, as long as we have the Second Amendment, “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws which enable U.S. citizens to protect themselves against such nonsense.

    Had this hapless Danish woman used pepper spray on a potential rapist in the U.S. (especially where I live in Texas), the police would have given her an “Attaboy!” and (again, in Texas) perhaps suggested that she get a gun to protect herself in future.

    For Europeans (and Brits): you’re screwed. Enjoy the rapes, robberies and muggings, because your elected legislators are responsible for the stupid laws which favor the rights of the criminal over those of the victim.

  • Shawn Levasseur, pepper spray is indeed legal in all 50 states; but it’s VERY ILLEGAL in some cities (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles) when carried by people not in law enforcement. Ditto knives. In most states, a pocket (folding) knife is okay, as long as the blade is less than 4″ long. Not so in (again) NYC and LA, where carrying ANY knife is illegal.

    This is why ‘state preemption” (wherein state law has precedence over local law) is so important. (And needless to say, New York and California have very few preemption laws.)

    Samizdatians of other nations, take note if you’re visiting the U.S. and want to protect yourselves…

    Incidentally, my preferred form of self-defense when traveling abroad (and therefore without a gun) is one of these — perfectly legal everywhere — because if the scumbag is temporarily blinded and can’t see you, he can’t hurt you. (I cannot recommend these things highly enough — some criminals have been known to start puking after being flashed, because of the total disorientation caused by the beam.) Every single member of my family carries a Surefire, even though most carry guns too, and I sleep better in consequence.

  • NickM

    Good idea but it is only legal for now. You just wait and see it banned in the EU.

  • knirirr

    Johnathan Pearce:

    There are indeed opportunities to teach self-defence – I hear that “Reality Based Self Defence” classes are quite popular and probably quite useful.
    Unfortunately, there is always the caveat that skill is but one factor in any violent encounter – if the opponents are bigger, stronger, fitter or more numerous then the victim will be severely disadvantaged and most people don’t have the time, inclination or aptitude to develop the high levels of skill in unarmed combat which might help them overcome such odds. A weapon is a great benefit to a weaker victim.

  • Forgive me for yet another comment, but this is one of my pet topics (as most of you may know).

    This is not just about women, and shame on the media for making it so. There is another group of people who need self-defense: the elderly. And as I’m getting up there, I speak for them, because I can’t get into brawls anymore. Up until age 50, I never said no to anyone who fancied their chances with me. Since turning 60, however… I have the will, but not the skills anymore.

    So I must perforce turn to weaponry alone to protect myself and mine. And I will use anything, legal or not, that comes to hand. I usually walk with a cane — I don’t need it since my gout cleared up, but in a strange city where I can’t carry my 1911, I take my stick. I seldom travel without a small pocket-knife — actually, it’s disguised as a “cigar-cutter” and I even carry a lighter to preserve the fiction — and I know how to use it, almost as well as I know how to shoot. And then of course when all else fails, there’s the Surefire flashlight to blind an assailant so that I can either escape or go onto the attack.

    Some people might think that I’m being excessively paranoid about all this. Statistically, where I live I have a much greater chance of being killed in a car wreck than by violence. But that doesn’t mean there’s no threat to my safety — jihad has seen to that — just as when I still lived in South Africa, my white skin made me a target for Black-on-White violence, which was a major reason for my emigration. Nevertheless, I now have a family who depend on me for their security and counsel, not to mention affection, and I’ll be damned if some dickhead is going to take that away just because they want the $20 in my wallet or because I don’t bow to Mecca nine times a day.

    So I guess I’m still not going to say no to anyone who fancies their chances. Only now, instead of fists, that person will face a life-threatening reaction because that’s all that’s left to me.

  • Cristina

    Kim, sadly, in this beautiful city the SureFire may be illegal if it makes the assailant sick. The police department recommends we use an air horn, as long as you are careful not to damage the criminal’s eardrums. And do not even think to bash him on the head, or any other appropriate part, with it. That would be considered an assault.

  • patriarchal landmine

    hey I’m a man, I sure didn’t vote for anyone who wants to criminalize self defense.

    I don’t know any man who would…

    except married, henpecked cucks.

  • Pat

    Sorry Christina but which beautiful city?

  • jdm

    If I may, the reason you see travesties like this in Denmark is that after years and years of having to little or nothing to do, those who make the laws and those who enforce them are utterly unprepared to handle the reality foisted on them and their society by their elites.

    In Denmark, even up through the 70s, anyone could go pretty much anywhere and pretty much at any hour and not have to worry about being criminally accosted. The police, if one even saw them, dealt with crimes like stopping a cyclist if their light was out or a motorist if their muffler wasn’t, um, muffling. A real serious event for which they’d be called out to was to break up a drunken brawl. Between Swedes.

    And in that environment, the Left foisted their Political Correctness culture on society and, man, did it take hold. First of all, it was so easy. There were few if any residents “af anden etnisk herkomst end dansk” (ie, of a different ethnic origin than Danish) and of those that were, they were, in the main, well-behaved and hard-working. Danes looked down on messy, violent cultures like the American and thought to themselves (and said to each other), that those other countries aren’t trying hard enough. They don’t believe in PC strongly enough.

    And then, in a combination of smug superiority and cultural self-loathing, Danes decided to introduce some excitement into their society. First it was just Yugoslavians and Turks (the “guest worker” scam); but later it was refugees from throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East and even beyond. And these people were not required to assimilate – heck, they wouldn’t assimilate even if it were required (of course, PC prevented that). And as these foreign cultures grew and became stronger, the old ways manifested. And crime, real crime, something from a past long gone, asserted itself.

    And then over a period of some few years, that so-called trite phrase that “if guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns”, was shown to be true for all weapons and items of self-defense. And indeed, you have (Danish) fishermen who forgot to take their fishing knife out of the glove compartment being arrested, fined and threatened with jail. Of course, hand guns are right out. And it is in this environment that defensive weapons, like pepper spray, have been made illegal because, think if someone used it in an offensive manner. Against someone not of Danish origin. By a Dane.

    And meanwhile, criminal gangs proliferate. Every day, muggings, beatings, robberies occur where once they didn’t. Christ, even home invasions. Companies like Securitas that almost didn’t exist some 40, 50 years ago or had very specific corporate markets, install alarms in the homes of the middle class. As if it matters, the police won’t come out anyway. They’re undermanned and too busy writing reports about speeders and pepper spray users.

  • Paul Marks

    Nigel S.

    A legal case would not work – the state has no legal duty to defend the lives and property of the citizens.

    Taxation is not a payment for services rendered – it is just money the government takes.

    Kim du Toit – is anything not illegal in the accused cities of New York and L.A.?

  • “hey I’m a man, I sure didn’t vote for anyone who wants to criminalize self defense.”

    And I didn’t vote for Barack fucking Obama… and yet here I am. I did, however, once live in a city where my vote counted for nothing, where carrying guns was illegal, and where a corrupt city government set out to bankrupt the place. So I moved.

  • Paul, the only thing entirely legal in LA and NYC is bending over a desk.

    So that you can be raped by local government, repeatedly.

  • Richard Thomas

    Rob, non-denominational prayers and meditations, one would hope!

  • AngryTory


    Open Carry – a duty not a right.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly (and correctly) affirmed that the police are not responsible for your safety — i.e. you can’t sue the police for failing to protect you or your property against criminal behaviour.

    The case in question is Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), for those who want more information.

  • Rob

    Funny, but the people who make and enforce such laws are either armed with weapons or protected by other armed men to ensure their safety.

  • staghounds

    Alas, Person from Porlock (I love Porlock, so pretty!), Liberty is #6, Order is #3…

    “… form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

  • the other rob

    charliel asked “So, pepper spray is illegal. Is spray-on oven cleaner? Or is it the mere act of self-defense that’s so out of order?”

    As nobody has answered this question, I’ll take a stab at it. In English law possession some items is illegal per se (for example, little cans of CS gas are classed as firearms) while in other cases intent is the deciding factor.

    When I lived there (before I said “You may all go to hell and I shall go to Texas”) the standard guidance was that a lady carrying a pot of ground pepper home from the supermarket with the intention of using it to cook dinner was acting lawfully, while a lady carrying the same pot of ground pepper in her handbag, with the intention of throwing the contents into the eyes of any assailant to help her make her escape, was not. This is, of course, insane.

    NB: Any suggestion that I once had a contact with access to smuggled CS gas from the Germanies is pure fantasy. As would be suggestions that I might have used said contact to equip ladies and elderly gentlemen of my acquaintance. I’d never countenance lawbreaking…

    @ Kim du Toit – there’s a folk saying in these parts, about aging. It goes “Never pick a fight with an old man. He’s too tired to fight you, so he’ll just kill you.”

  • JohnK

    The policy of total disarmament of the British people was ushered in by the comically entitled Prevention of Crime Act 1953. I believe the proximate cause was a moral panic over Teddy Boys carrying bicycle chains and razors, and slashing cinema seats and each other.

    The Act criminalised the carrying of weapons in public without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The latter exemption is easy: a carpet fitter might reasonably have a Stanley knife with him when working, but he had better not leave it in his pocket when he goes out for a drink later on.

    The first exemption is more interesting, and is what makes this absurd law consitutional. We all have an obligation as subjects of the Queen to uphold the Queen’s Peace. When policemen carry batons, they are allowed to be armed for this precise reason, but there is no way that a jumped up organisation like the police has a monopoly of upholding the Quuen’s Peace.

    So if you are nicked with a weapon and are unwise enough to admit it was for self-defence, they will do you for the crime of thinking your pathetic life is of more value than the opinion of a long dead civil servant in 1953. But if you assert that your purpose was to be able to uphold the Queen’s Peace, they will have a problem with you, and will probably drop the matter, because this is not something they wish to have tested in Court.

    I know of at least one man who wrote to his local Chief Constable to inform him he had a police style baton, and intended to carry it with him in public so as to be able to uphold the Queen’s Peace. The uniformed bureaucrat declined to enter into any sort of correspondence, but neither did he attempt to stop him carrying his baton.

    Food for thought perhaps, and remember: the state is never your friend.

  • Paul Marks

    Kim – that is what I thought.

  • TK

    The Other Rob,

    Related to your postscript to KdT, I learned a similar saying when I started practicing Tae Kwon Do long ago.

    The young man fights you, the adult man hurts you, the middle-aged man cripples you, and the elderly man kills you.

  • Jerry

    They welcome 7th century sand savages with open arms but want to ban Donald Trump !!
    Interesting thought process – screwed up, but interesting !

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Has anyone suggested yet that women in that situation should just close their eyes and think of England? The reaction might be amusing.